so by your reasoning, third rate ambulance chasing law firms = communists…. hmmm yes that is a very robust rationale….

She was a labor lawyer in a third rate ambulance chasing firm. sorry if that doesn’t change my opinion.

I forgot:
”

The former part time communist party typing pool secretary is also an economic conservative now. You probably need to include her too. Lol.”

Lol Lol Lol blah blah blah….. Gillard was a partner of a Victorian law firm - very communist-type behaviour don’t you think??

So are you arguing for zero regulation? I think that there is a sensible balance between markets and government. Markets are not always perfect… if ever. For example market produce externalities such as excessive polution - at the moment the market does not provide incentives to deal with this problem. However it is unarguable that government need to provide incentives through regulation and industry policy to address this issue. Also the market provides too little R&D. i’m not talking about product differentiation btw, i’m talking about substantial developments such as the internet (developed by the US military over a number of years, the private sector couldn’t possibly have had the capacity to develop this). - this is also an unarguable fact…
Where would financial markets be without prudential regulation? Corporate disclosure??? So financial markets are imperfect where there are information assymetries… Privatisation thats results in a monopoly does not promote economic efficiency. Competition laws are required to regulate market activity…. you could go on and on about where it is appropriate for government regulation to enhance market outcomes. Market imperfections occur in every economy without exception. There’s a compelling case for government intervention in each of these cases. This doesn’t make me a central planning throw back from the commie days… But I think reasonable people would agree that some form of government regulation is warranted in just about all markets. In the words of Joseph Stiglitz: “is often cited as arguing for the “invisible hand” and free markets: firms, in the pursuit of profits, are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do what is best for the world. But unlike his followers, Adam Smith was aware of some of the limitations of free markets, and research since then has further clarified why free markets, by themselves, often do not lead to what is best. As I put it in my new book, Making Globalization Work, the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there.”

Unlike “government fundamentalists”, most sensible people understand that the government doesn’t generally improve the outcome when they intervene in markets. Personally, I find these conversations more productive if we all leave the “you’re a fundmentalist” arguments out of it.

It makes no sense to say that workchoices had no positives and huge negatives. The positives and negatives are caused by the same thing. Either it had little effect (either positive or negative) or it had a large effect (with both benefits & costs). Personally, I believe it made little difference.

I agree with you regarding Hawke/Keating. Unfortunately, two of their major failings were (1) industrial relations (note unemployment under Keating); and (2) the size of government. Howard did make some marginal improvements in the first, but totally failed on the latter.

I also agree that Rudd was better than the alternative. But not because of labour market regulation.

“you support a party that wants to -reregulate”
As i’ve said before, I don’t particularly like Rudd (his constant “economic conservative” talk is very tedious and annoying)… but he was better than the alternative… I do admire the Hawke/Keating era however.

Workchoices was the biggest refrom since the Harvestor case.

Labor ran on re-regulation. So why are talking about refrom when you support a party that wants to -reregulate?

This is amusing.

I would of thought that the difference would be obvious from their respective names, but anyways….

A cyclical crisis is caused by downturn in business cycles and the global economy - like that experienced in the early 90s, where our major trading partners were also in recession. There’s a economic addage that goes like this: when the US sneezes, Australia catches a cold… and thats exactly what happened in the early 90s. Our economy was structurally sound, but forces largely beyond the control of the government forced the downturn in Oz… Now don’t get started with the predictable debt argument… because most countries (especially the US) hold a far greater proportion of debt to GDP than Australia did in the early 90s, and still manage to maintain low interest rates….

A structural crisis is one where the economy is not competitive because of the way it is organised. So we have it with the Liberal government of the early 80s. Recession caused by a backward, highly protected, highly regulated, low investment economy. An economy where major surgery was needed to for us to become competitive. And Labor did what was desperately needed, so we didn’t have to survive on IMF handouts… that’s the direction Oz was headed under the Libs at that time.

Contrast this with the 90s crisis, where the economy only had to weather the storm, the structure of the economy was sound and a major reform agenda was not needed to take advantage of the subsequent upturn in the global economy.

Lets see, Workchoices (+GST) v lowering tariffs, imputation tax system, floating the dollar, deregulating the financial sector etc hmmmmm….. Yes the Libs reform agenda was nothing compared with Labor… As for Libs being in opposition… they had the preponderance of the last 20 years before Hawke in govt to make the reforms (when most of Western Europe made them), but they didn’t….

“public opinion is actually converging on Keating’s ideas….…

He was an uncouth, hatefilled, uneducated dickhead and the elecorate saw the end of him.”

As usual ad hominem attacks and no facts of what PK actually did, which history is judging very kindly - especially reforms of the 80s…. But also his progressive social policies (embracement of Asia, reconciliation and the republic) will be proven correct in the fullness of time…..

but still the fact remains that Labor made all the fundamental reforms to the economy whilst the libs stood back and watched (as everyone agrees with now)…
Well the Libs were in opposition at the time, so we couldn’t ecxpect them to make reforms. I don recall though that Howard supported all the reforms they made.

And yes including the float… and what about lowering of tariffs… you could argue that the market forced us to lower them as well.. and that would be a good argument..
No, lowering tariffs was a good thing. So was the float, but as I said they had no choice other than floating otherwise they would have had to have gone to the IMF and stood in line with the African and South American countries for a loan.

What about economic reforms of the prior Lib government (even with a favourable senate)?
Wokchoices and breaking the back of the gangsters running the wharfs. They were decent reforms. However workchoices was not properly sold or implememted but it would have been a great refrom otherwise.

a distinction b/n cyclical and structural recessions….
Ok so tell us what is the difference and please provide an example of each.

As for PK, the electorate thought they understood him and voted him out but now public opinion is actually converging on Keating’s ideas….…

He was an uncouth, hatefilled, uneducated dickhead and the elecorate saw the end of him.

As for Clive Hamilton, I wasn’t plugging him… I simply mentioned a statement Andrew Norton had made in reviewing his book…. btw you sound like an authority on Hamilton seeing that you HAVE NEVER READ HIM lol

Yea I have. I have read his columns in various papers and he sounds mentally disturbed and possibly retarded.

Nothing more to add

Exactly